Comments by ChuckD
Posted on June 8 at 11:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kinda weird how this article and my comment got buried so quickly while uncommented articles are currently in the "Mot discussed" section".
Posted on June 8 at 12:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That's a lot of money and a lot of responsibility for an unelected position in the workings of the city. The City and concerned citizens would do well to be familiar with Senate Bill S5867 which "Relates to the accountability and efficiency of industrial development agencies and authorities".
Posted on June 7 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yet we so strongly defend the "right" of anyone to openly carry loaded weapons anywhere they wish. See where this goes?
The ACLU makes a clear distinction between defending the *actions* of an abhorrent group versus their, or anyone's First Amendment right to speak freely. That's admittedly a very difficult thing to do sometimes. But civil rights are civil rights and in this country apply to everyone, no matter how revolting.
I'm not a lawyer and cannot speak for ISIS' rights or a knucklehead's in a crowded theater. And one could easily see how ABC News skewed the story to make it more titillating (I did read it). What a surprise.
Posted on June 7 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm normally a fan of Rachel Maddow (in spite of her often shrill delivery), but last night was a disgusting display of how the corporate run media move our elections. While she seemed to try to portray both sides of this AP release, there behind her the entire time was an oversized graphic showing Ms. Clinton's beaming face, her name in big letters, and a checkmark with the words "Presumptive Nominee". No attribution of who "presumed".
On the other hand I noticed CNN had a good two hours of actually balanced, evenly represented discussion on the specific subject of the release. So rare praise for them.
Posted on June 6 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As an unaffiliated voter and one who leans to the left, I'm relieved to see a non-Democratic (and female) judge look into this.
Posted on June 6 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
reader1 - you have a sadly thin skin if you think my questioning those who operate the cameras, law enforcement, is "cop bashing". It has everything to do with questioning their deployment. Those who harbor the tapes and data, install and operate those cameras are suffereing a credibility crisis. I'm sorry that's how it is, but that's how it is.
And I'll stand with the ACLU's (and your position) on the use of video surveillance in select areas. They said they support it in the statement I linked to, if you'd read it you'd have seen that. Let's see some evidence that the police can police themselves and maybe we'll be more accepting, with less "cop bashing".
And at the risk of going too far of topic, I will not allow your poorly thought out statement implying the ACLU supports pedophiles. A cheap shot because you did not invest a little time in understanding what they were trying to do and clearly you did not try to see what they actually said about it. Since you carelessly put that out there, I'll take the liberty of pasting in their 2000 statement on "Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations". Civil rights suck sometimes, but to not defend them, as distasteful as they may be, is unAmerican. Shouldn't law enforcement be on the front line of that?
August 31, 2000
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
Posted on June 5 at 8:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
reader1 - I'll stand with the ACLU in protecting our civil rights before I'll stand with law enforcement. Impugning them with associations with pedophiles is a cheap shot.
You say: 'there is no evidence that the system has ever been abused'.
But there's also "no evidence" the mayor was drunk that night. There's also "no evidence" Zampalla was drunk on his special evening. Meanwhile there's very clear and compelling evidence, throughout this country, on video and audio, that there's a systemic problem with law enforcement and abuse of authority (including personal abuse of access to databases, which as I'm sure you know are now linked to face and license recognition technologies). And we should be comfortable with their increasing ability to scrutinize the public from darkened rooms somewhere?
How about law enforcement first show the American people they are responsible enough to handle it maturely? There hasn't been much evidence of that.
Posted on June 5 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think so reader1.
The ACLU lays out pretty well the issues with video surveillance. But of course law enforcement can't seem to find a way to work with the ACLU. What does it say when the law enforcement community struggles to protect citizens' civil rights?
Posted on June 2 at 9:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"When asked on Wednesday what police officers said to her outside the police station and why she ultimately decided not to press charges, Dingley said, 'I’m reluctant to answer those questions at this point in time because of fear of repercussions.'"
This, to me, is the lynchpin (as it were) to this whole drama. Regardless of this victim's past (and Paul Nelson went above and beyond in making that point), if she's being threatened in any way, if *any citizen* is being threatened in any way, to not testify to or report malfeasance of law enforcement or other public employees (servants, remember?), that then is the worst charge and there should be absolutely zero tolerance for it. It's not being overly dramatic to say this is the path to totalitarianism. It's far, far away but that's the direction this goes in, if true.
Posted on June 2 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe that's a misspeak. I believe "standard practice" is for all exterior doors to be secured and, if needed, have a video monitor with remote unlocking (buzzing them in), if there's not an actual adult stationed there.
"Lockdown" is when, at a minimum, all interior doors are secured too.
I'm not an authority on it so someone please correct me as needed.